### FI LED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT J uly 12, 20 05 THO MAS K. KAH N CL ERK [PUBLIS H]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T
No. 05-1381 7-P

IN RE: ROBERT DALE CONKLIN, Petitioner.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- A ppl ic at ionf

or L ea ve to Fi le aS ec ond or S uc ce ssi ve H ab ea s C or

pus Pe tit ion28 U

. S. C. § 22 44( b)

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -- (J uly 12, 200 5) BE FO RE : E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, BA RKE T T an d W IL SO N , Ci rc ut J udge s. BY THE COURT: Ro be rt D al e Co nkl in i s a n in m at e on G eo rg ia ’ s de ath r ow . O n Apr il 21, 200 4,

w e af fi rm ed the denia l of

his f ir st p et iti on s ee kin g 28 U

. S. C. § 22 54 h ab ea s c or pus rel ie f. Se e Co nk

lin v . Sc hof

ie ld , 36 6 F .3d 11 91 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ), cert. denied , __ U .S

.

_ _ , 1 2 5 S

. C t
. 1 7 0 3 , 1 6 1 L

. E d

. 2 d5 3 1 ( 2 0 0 5 )

. T h i s a f t e rn o o n t h e G e o r g i aS up r e me Co urt de nie d Conkl in’ s Cons oli da te d App lic at ion fo r Ce rt if ic at e of P ro bable Ca

use to Appeal and Motion for Stay of E xecut i o n . Conklin thereaf ter filed in this Court an application for an order perm itting the district court to consi der a second habeas petition and a Motion for Stay of E xecution p ursuant to 2 8 U. S. C. § 224 4(b). W e ar e co nstra ine d b y 28 U

. S. C. § 22 44 t o di sm iss c la im s inase co nd o r2

suc ce ssi ve pe tit ionf

or ha be as c or pus if the cl ai m s have be en pr es en te d in apr ev iou s application. Section 2244(b)(1) perm its Courts of Appeal to entertain claim s that have not been presented in a prio r ap p l ication onl y if the applicant m akes a pr ima fac ie sho w ing tha t on e of the tw o f oll ow ing r equir em en ts h as be ensa tis fi ed :
(A ) the c la im

r el ie s onane w r

ule of co nst itu tio na l l aw , m ad e re tr oa ct ive to c as es on co lla te ra l re vie w by the Su pr em e Co urt, tha t w as pr ev iou sly una va ila ble ; or (B)( i) the fac tual predicate for the claim could no t have been discovered pr ev iou sly

thr ough the e xe rc ise of

due dil ige nc e; a nd (i i) the f ac ts u nde rl y ing the c la im , if pr ove n a nd v ie w ed

in lig ht o f the ev ide n c e a s a w h o l e , w o u l d b e s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t ab l i s h b y c l e a r an d co nvi nc ing e vid en ce tha t, but f or c onst itu tio na l e rr or , no r ea sona ble fa ct fi nde r w oul d ha ve f

ound the ap pli cant g uil ty

of the und er ly ing offense.
Se e als o 28 U

. S. C. § 22 44( b) (3 )( C) ( se tti ng f orth prima facie showing requirem ent). Conklin m akes several newclaim s in h i s application, all based on the “ new evidence” exception to the bar against successive habeas petitio ns. T hese claim s can be broken down into two grou ps: First Conklin claim s that new evidence shows that no reasonable factfinder could find agg ravating circum stances that wou l d justify im posit i ono f

t he d e a t h pe na l t y ; s e c on d, h e ar gu e s t ha tt he G e or gi aS up r e m e C ou rt f a i l e dt o ap p l y Ch apm an v . Ca lif orni a ’ s harm le ss e rr or

standa rd

. 386 U.S. 18, 24 (1 96 7) . W e ad dr es s t he se arg um en ts in tu rn . Ci ti ng th e Due Pro ces s C la us e, B radyv . M ary lan d , 373 U

. S. 83 (19 63) , a nd the Eighth Am endm ent prohibi tion o f cruel and unus ual puni shm ent, Conk lin claim s thatConklin cites to Johnson v. U nited States , 125 S. Ct . 1571, 1580 (2005), f or this proposition. 1 Johnson involved a first § 2255 petition. W e nee d not determine he re w hether a cour t decision ca

n be a ne w fa ct in a ca se involving a succe ssive habea s petition.

3 the pr ose cu tor

a ct ed im pr ope rl y in pr ev en tin g th e opi nio n of D r. Sa le h Za ki, the sta te
m ed ic al e xa m ine r, fr om be ing pr es en te d to the j ur y an d m isc ha ra ct er iz ing his opi nio n in f ro nt o f the j ur

y . T his , Co nkl in a sse rt s, pr ev en te d hi m fro m dis co ve ri ng this evidence, e ven with the exercise of due diligen ce. Furtherm ore, Conklin argues that the “ ev ide nc e as aw hol e” de m onstra te s th at he is “ not

gui lty ” of

the und er ly ing
ca pit al of fe nse . F or

thi s pr opos iti on, Co nkl in c ite s Murray v. Carrier , 477 U

. S. 478 (1986). Fu rthe rm or e, Co nkl in c la im s tha t the G eo rg iaS upr em e Co urt f ai le d to appl y Ch apm an , 386 U

. S. 18, 24, in w hic h th e Su pr em e Co urt he ld tha t a co urt r ev ie w ing
a fe de ra l c onst itu tio na l e rr or m ust de te rm ine w he the r the e rr or w as ha rm le ss b ey ond
a re as ona ble doubt. The basis of t h es e n ew cl aim s is new evidence subm itted in th e form of D r. Za ki’ s 20 05 o pi ni ona nd D r . S pi t z ’ s ne w o pi ni on( t o be c on t r a st e d w i t h hi s earlier

“ Re port” ). W ithr eg ar d to his Ch apm an cl ai m , Co n k l i n s ee m s t o ar g u e t h at t o d ay’s de ci sio n by the Su

pr em e Cou rt of G eo rg ia is the ne w ev ide nc e uponw hic h hi s c la im is based. E ven assum ing th is court decision is a n ew fac t, Conklin cannot sho w that 1 no reasonable factf

inder would have found the aggravating circum stances necessary to fin d h im

gu il ty o f

a cri m e warra nt in g t he de at h p en al ty. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(1)( B)(ii)

. W ith re spe ct to Co nkl in’ s oth er cl ai m s, he lik ew ise c an not m ee t the str ing en tI n p arti c u la r , it is u n c le ar

w h e th e r th e Si xth A me n dme n t gu ar an te e s a d e f e n d an t t h e r ig ht 2 to a non-psy chiatric expert who is cruc ial to prove his only defe nse: self-de fense

. Conklin’s Moti on for a

Stay is also denied. 3 4 re qui re m en ts o f § 22 44(b ). C onkl in h as not de m onstra te d th at

he c oul d no t have discovered this new evidence with the e x er ci s e o f due diligence. F or exam ple, Conklin could have ob tained an affidavit for his first habeas petition, or discovered D r. Z ak i’ s di sc om fo rt

w iththe pr ose cu tio n’ s c ha ra ct er iz at ionof his opi nio n onc ro ssex am ina tio n. N or

ha s C onkl in e sta

bli she d th at

he is fa ct ua lly inn oc en t by

c le ar a nd
co nv in ci ng ev id en ce. See 28 U

. S. C. 224 4( b) (1 )( B( ii) ; M urr ay , 477 U

. S. 478

. W e co nti nue to be co nc er ne d abou t the lim its pla ce d on de fe nse co unse l by the tr ia l j udge

. I t i s di ff

ic ult to j ust if y the t ria l c ourt’ s de nia l of c ouns el ’ s r eque st f

or
m ore tim e, when he w as given on ly thir t y-s ev en day s to m ount a defe nse. F urther de ep en ing our

c onc er n is the tr ia l j udge ’ s insis te nc e on d en y ing c ouns el ’ s m oti on f or
m od es t fun ds to hi re an ex pe rt c ru ci al to Co nk li n’s d efen se . Se e Co nk lin , 366 F. 3d at 1210 (“ W e ar e unable to understand w hy a trial j udge w ould refuse to grant a short
co nti nua nc e and afford a f ir st- de gr ee m

ur de r de fe nda nt $ 2, 500 of a va ila ble sta te fu nds to h ir e ane xpe rt

c ru ci al to his de fe nse . ”)

. D es pit e our m isg ivi ngs, the li m its
on o ur j ur isd ic tio n do not pe rm it us to qu er y f urthe r. W e fe el the se c onstra int s keenly , and without further gu idance from the Suprem e Court as to the scope of Ak e v. Okla ho ma , 470 U

. S. 68 (1 985) , w e ar e co m pe lle d to thi s re sul t. N ev er the le ss, f or 2 the foregoing reasons, we deny Conklin ’ s application to file a s u cc es s ive habeas
co rp us p et iti on. 3

APPLICATI ON DENI ED.5

E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, c onc ur s inthe r es ult

.6

BA RKE T T , Ci rc uit

Jud ge , dis se nti ng: I cannot co nc ur in the ex ec uti on of som eo ne w hose c onvi ct iona nd s en te nc ing I believe dem onstrated a total absence of d ue process. Robert Con klin was convicted
an d se nte nc ed

to de ath a ft er

be ing de nie d a ny m ean in gf ul o ppor tun ity to pr es en t a de fe nse e ith er

to his c onvi ct ionor

to his se nte nc e. A s I ha ve no ted i n m y dis se nt from the denial of Conklin ’ s 28 U. S. C. § 225 4 petitio n for habeas corpus relief , see Co nk lin v. Sc hof

ie ld , 366 F. 3d 1191, 1211 (11th Cir. 2004 ) (B arkett, J., dissenti ng),
no at to rn ey

c oul d po ssi bly

ha ve pr ovi de d c om

pe te nt a ssi stanc e unde r the one ro us
co ndi tio ns d em an de d by

the tr ia l c ourt. Whe n C onkl in f ir st s ough t habe as r el ie f fr om this Court, the m aj ority

conceded that his cons titutio nal rights had b een violated, as

“ the tr ia l co urt ac te d unr ea sona bly in de ny ing Co nkl in the f unds ne ce ssary

to pr es en t
an effective defense, ” Co nk lin , 36 6 F

. 3d a t 12 09 , bu t de ni e d r e l i e f , e xp l a i ni ng that

“ w e cannot

sa y tha t Conk lin ’ s tri al , as a w hol e, w as fu nda m en ta lly unf ai r an d ou tsi de of the boun ds of the Constitu tion.” Id

. at 1210. I disagree. U nder the circum stances in this c as e, I a m

c om pe lle d to c onc lud e tha t C onkl in’ s tr ia l w as f unda m en ta lly unf ai r. B ec au se Co nkl in d id n ot r ec ei ve af ai r tr ia l un de r our

sy ste m of j ust ic e, he is
en ti tl edto a st ay

of e xe cu ti on an d t o h ab eas rel ie f. C o n k l i n ’s a t t o rn e y w a s g i v e n o n l y thi rty -s ev en day s to pr ep ar e ane xc ee din gly
com plex capital case in w h i ch technical m edical evidence and detailed expert te sti m ony play ed apiv ota l r ole

. The tr ia l c ourt i ne xpl ic ab ly de nie d r ep ea te d r eque sts for m ore tim e to prepare for trial, d enied Conklin the paltry sum of $500 with whichI n a pre-trial mot ion, Conkli n soug ht “funds not to exceed $2,500” for e x pert a ssistance. A 4 late r c oll oq

uy be tw e e n Co nk lin ’s c ouns e l and the c ourt re ve a ls that the c ourt a lso re je c te d “ a c e rt a in amount up to $500.” A jury co n v i ct ed C onklin of murder, a nd at sentenc ing r ecommende d the death sentence 5 afte r finding that the murder was outra g eously

or wa ntonly vile, horrible, or

inhuman and involved d ep ra v i t y o f mind, an ag g ravating c ircumstance under G eorg ia law. Ga . Code Ann. § 17-10- 30(b)( 7). 7 to h ir e a m ed ic al e xpe rt , an d refu se d to giv e Co nkl in’ s a tto rn ey a ddi tio na l t im e to 4 pr ep ar e fo r the se nte nc ing he ar ing , w hic h f ollow ed on the he el s of

his c onvi ct ion

. T he a m az ing ru sh to tr ia l an d de nia l of m one y fo r a de fe nse ex pe rt w he n th e w hol e
ca se tur ne d on the sta te ’ s m ed ic al ex pe rt ’ s tes tim ony c an not pos sib ly be de em ed

f ai r pr oc es s. Co nkl in, w ho w as 5' 7" an d 15 0 po unds , a dm itt ed he kil le d G e o r g e Cr ooks , w ho

w as 6' 2" an d 20 0 po unds

. C onkl in’ s sole d ef en se w as that he did

not int en d to kil l Cr ooks a nd d id s o inastr uggl e to p ro te ct

him se lf f ro m be ing r ap ed

. A ft er

Co nkl in killed Crooks, h e d ism em bered th e b ody

in an attem

pt to di spos e of it. T o prove that 5 Co nkl in h ad

the r equis ite int en t t o su ppor t a m ur de r co nvi ct ion , the stat e ha d to establish th at som e of the knife w ound s on Crooks ’ bodyhad be en i n fl i cted before death. T he only

evidence against Crooks on this qu estion wa s the testim ony of D r. Sa le h Z ak i, the sta te ’ s m ed ic al e xa m ine r. A lth ough D r. Z ak i c oncede d on c ro ssex am ina ti on tha t the w ound s c oul d ha ve oc cu rr ed a ft er de ath, he ha d te sti fi ed

on di rect ex am in at io n th at kn ife wou nd s t o C ro ok s’ nec k wer e in fli ct ed“ an te m or te m ,”
or be fo re de ath. H av ing be en de nie d the fu nds to hir e a m ed ic al e xpe rt w ho w oul d have testified aff

irm atively

that the knife wounds occurred po st-m ortem rather than ante-m ortem , thus countering Dr

. Zaki’ s direct testim ony with that of another
re specte d e xpe rt

a nd a m pli fy ing the e ff

ec t of his c onc es sio n th at

the kni fe w ound sFiled in conjunc tion with C onklin’s new state ha beas pe tition. 6 Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

a pp oin te d Dr . Spitz in conne c tio n with Conkli n’ s h a be a s p ro c e e din g s in 7 fe de ra l di str ic t court
. He pr e pa re d a re po rt

in 1 99 5, a ft e r r e vie wi ngthe a uto ps y re po rt , p ho tog ra

ph s, and trial testimony . I n May of 2005 he r eviewe d that information ag ain an d o p i ned that “[t]he scre wdriver

wounds are antemorte m (befor e death) while all of the knife wounds are post-mortem (a ft er d ea t h ), ” a n d

s t at edt h at t h e ev i d en ce h e r ev i ew edwa s co n s i s t en twi t h a s el f- d ef en s e k i l l i n g. Dr. Spitz provided a

n aff idavit on J uly

5, 2005. Fur thermore , althoug h defe nse witness Chuck Des ed er i o was prepar ed to testify that the 8 vic timha d a

vo latil e te mpe r and a te nd e nc y fo r v iol e nc e , Co nk lin ’s a tto rn e y fa ile d to e lic it this r e p u t a t i o nt e s t i m o n y a f

t e r t h e c o u rte x c l u d e d

s o m e o f D e s e d e r i o ’ s o t h e r

t e s t i m o n y. 8 co uld ha ve be en inf

lic te d be fo re de ath, Co nkl in co uld onl y ar gue Z ak i’ s am big uity regarding this crucial issue. Co nsi de ri ng the uns ee m ly ha ste to obt ai n ac onvi ct ionin this cas e, it is n ot
sur pr i si ng t ha tt he s t a t e ’ s m e di c a l e xp e rta ttr i a l , D r . Z a ki , h a s no w c om e f orwa rd

w itha n a ff

ida vit sa y ing tha t i n hi s op ini on, “ Mr

. Co nkl in did not int en tio na lly se t ou t

6 to kill Mr. Cr ooks

. . . . I sawnone of the evidence that I have seen in m an y other cases in which I testified to indi cate that this killin g invo lved plannin g, intent, torture, or depravity .” T his testim ony , in addition to the affidavit o f th e independent m edical
ex am ine r ap poi nte d by fe de ra l dist ri ct co urt, D r. W er ne r Sp itz , w ho opine s that a ll of the knife wounds on the bodyo cc u rr ed af ter death, consistent with Conklin’s tria l testim ony , shoul d give any court pause. 7 W ith out an ind ep en de nt m ed ic al ex pe rt to cou nte r D r. Z ak i’ s dir ec t t es tim ony at trial and focus on his c o n t ra dictory testim ony

on cross-exam ination , and lim ited by the se ve re ti m e co nstra int s im pose d by the dis tr ic t c ourt, Co nkl in w as una ble to subj ec t the pr ose cu tio n’ s c as e to “ m eanin gf ul a dve rs ar ia l tes tin g, ” an d di d no t r ec ei ve
a fa ir tr ia l. Se e U

nit ed Sta tes v . Cr oni c , 466 U

. S. 648 , 659 ( 1984 ) (d es cr ibi ng 8 sit ua tions in w hic h de fe nse c ouns el m ay be c onsi de re d pe r se ineffec tive). UnderAlthough twe nty -five da y s of t rial preparation wer e found to be suff icient in Cro nic , the fa ct 9 that Conklin’s counsel had thi rty -seve n day s to prepa re does not take this case outside the rea lm of pe r seineffe ctiveness. As I discuss in my

previous dissent, Cro nic requ i re s u s t o consi der “ the circ umstances surrounding [a defenda nt’s] represe ntation . . . .” Id. at 662. I t “does not stand for the proposition that twenty -five da y s or more of

prepa ration may

never trig g er a p resumption of ineffe ctive assistanc e.” Con k lin , 366 F.3d at 1213 (Ba

rkett, J., di ssenting)

. Cro nic was not a ca pital murder c ase, but a mail fra ud case wher e the “under ly ing historical fac ts” wer e not in dispute and the attorne y

had only reque sted thirty day s to pr epar e. Her e, the events leadingup to the killing wer e closely disputed, fore nsic evidenc e and expert testimony wer e cr itical, and the c ourt denied r epeated reque sts for continuanc es and f unding. I n short, it is a dramatic misrea ding of Cro nic to sugg est that the fa ct that Conklin’s c ounsel had more than twenty -five day s to pr epar e outweig hs all of the other circ umstances that made eff ective r epre sentation impossibl e.

9 these circum stances, “ the likeliho od that any law y er, even a f

ully com p etent one,
co uld pr ovi de e ff

ec tiv e as sis ta nc e [w as ] so s m al l tha t a pr es um pti on o f pr ej udi ce is appropriate .

. . .” Id

. at

659 -6 0. 9 F urthe rm or e, Co nkl in w as a lso de nie d a fai r se nte nc ing he ar ing

. A lth ough the
m aj or ity sug ge sts tha t Co nkl in’ s a tto rn ey m ad e a re as ona

ble “ ta ct ic al ” de ci sio n no t to pre s e n ta n y

m i t i g a t i n g e v i d e n c e a tt h e s e n t e n c i n g p h a s e , a n dt h a ta n y a v a i la ble t e s t i mo n y w o u l dn o th a v e b e e n h e l p f u l , t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’s r e f

u s a l t o g r a n tc o u n s e l t i me to prepare f

or sentencing and refusal to provid e funding for a psy chiatric expert le ft Conklin ’ s attorney no r easonable alternatives to c hoos e from

. This hardly constitu tes strategy
. I w ould grant the request for a stay of execution and habeas relief.